Johnson, Dane E.
2008-04-21T23:01:17Z
2008-04-21T23:01:17Z
2007
86 Or. L. Rev. 249 (2007)
0196-2043
http://hdl.handle.net/1794/5952
46 p.
Part I of this Comment provides a background on AETA from
its origins in the bioresearch industry to its adoption as law. Part
II compares the crimes of militant animal protectionists with those
of militant abortion opponents. Part III then compares AETA
and FACE, analyzing AETA’s constitutionality using as a model
decisions upholding FACE. Part III concludes that AETA does
not violate the First Amendment. Part IV argues that since
AETA is likely to withstand First Amendment scrutiny, the law
legitimizes an inconsistent use of the terrorism label that will
hinder protected protest activity. Finally, Part V suggests
reasons that this chilling effect is not benign, including societal
consequences of constraining protest and economic
consequences for protested enterprises.
221004 bytes
application/pdf
en_US
University of Oregon School of Law
United States. Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
AETA
United States. Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994
FACE
Domestic terrorism
Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p.249-294 : Cages, Clinics, and Consequences: The Chilling Problems of Controlling Special-Interest Extremism
Cages, Clinics, and Consequences: The Chilling Problems of Controlling Special-Interest Extremism
Article